[Maddog78]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/02/27/8555701-cp.html

February 27, 2009

Canada intercepts Russian bomber on eve of Obama visit

By Stephen Thorne, THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - Canadian fighter jets were scrambled to intercept a snooping Russian bomber over the High Arctic on the eve of U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Ottawa last week.

"At no time did Russian planes enter Canadian airspace," Defence Minister Peter MacKay told a news conference Friday. "But within 24 hours of the president's visit to Canada last week we did scramble two F-18 fighter planes.

"They met. The Russian aircraft was approaching Canadian airspace and, as they have done on previous occasions, (the Canadians) sent very clear signals that were understood: that aircraft was to turn tail and head back to its own airspace. Which it did."

The CF-18s took off from Cold Lake, Alta., on Feb. 18 after Norad detected the Cold War-era, long-range bomber known as a Bear headed for Canadian airspace. While the lumbering aircraft never entered North American airspace, MacKay suggested the flight's timing was suspect.

"I'm not going to stand here and accuse the Russians of deliberately doing this during the presidential visit," he said. "But it was a strong coincidence, which we met with the presence, as we always do, of F-18 fighter planes and world-class pilots that know their business."

They sent a signal, MacKay said, that the Russians should "back off and stay out of our airspace."



Russian aircraft regularly probed into North American airspace during the Cold War and Canadian and American fighters routinely tracked the snoopers and escorted them back into international air space.

Such flights were suspended for years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but resumed in recent years as Russia pushed its claim on the Arctic and oil wealth allowed the country to spend more on its military.

Last summer, then-foreign affairs minister David Emerson said Russian intrusions into Canadian air space had greatly increased.

U.S. air force Gen. Gene Renuart, head of the North American Aerospace Defence Command, said pilots use internationally recognized signals to head off such incursions, including rocking wings, turning in front of the bombers and issuing radio warnings.

"While we do not speak the common language, they are trained in those common signals just as we are," said Renuart. "To date, those have been effective in deviating or deterring those aircraft from entering into either Canadian or American airspace."

The Russian pilots have been "professional" in their conduct, he added, but it's important for Canada and the United States to maintain "that solid, integrated air defence posture that we have."

MacKay said the Russians give no warning prior to the flights. Canadian government officials, including MacKay, have asked the Russian ambassador and defence minister to give Ottawa notice of such flights. The requests have fallen on deaf ears.

"They simply show up on a radar screen," the minister said. "This is not a game at all.

"These aircraft approaching Canadian airspace are viewed very seriously."

[bencole]

The reality of the matter is that the Lomonosov Ridge provides a strategic opening for the Russians to control the entire Arctic Ocean. The Russian claim is also potentially very very economically valuable. The facts on the ground (and under the water) are that the Russians already claim ownership of the Lomonosov Ridge.

How likely do you think the artic is going to be strategic in a military sense or otherwise in the future?
I mean the sub-zero harsh evironment really puts a damper on large scale military maneuvers and resource plays alike. A surface fleet cannot move through the area so something like the US carrier battle groups would be useless, nuclear submarines probably are the only military units that can transit
but I've heard the Russian sub fleet is most obsolete and in mothballs. Also how is it possible to extract these resources economically?, how will offshore rigs and workers fair in such a challenging place? I mean aren't they shutting in production right now in warmer places due to economics? If your refering to minerals and ores on the sea floor, how will these be extracted economically? I get the feeling that the artic won't turn out to be strategically or economically that important.

[Maddog78]

It will when the price of oil goes back to $150+
The rigs wil operate there with no problems. It only takes money.

[bencole]

It will when the price of oil goes back to $150+
The rigs wil operate there with no problems. It only takes money.

Are you sure?, can it be demonstrated to be profitable evan at those prices?, considering the logistics
of getting workers and equipment in and out of the area? would you live and work there for minimum wage?

[bencole]

would you live and work there for minimum wage?

Those guys get paid a LOT more than minimum wage!

Here: http://www.oil-rig-worker.com/wages.asp

I'm sure it varies a lot, but my friend who worked on a rig in the GoM until he got injured recently made good money and had great benefits.

would those guys be able to do that job in gail force winds at -40 C? my point is that it may not be economically feasible, which is supported somewhat by the fact no one has tried.

[Maddog78]

I personally have worked in the Beaufort Sea onboard the Kulluk and Molikpaq for Gulf Oil and the Explorer II Drill Ship for Dome Petroleum in the mid 80's.

http://www.oilrig-photos.com/picture/number129.asp

http://www.frontier-drill.com/Fleet/Kul ... fault.aspx






It is no problem to work up there. Just takes proper planning.
I'm sure there would be profitable fields found if oil was $150/bbl especially once the Mackenzie pipeline is completed.

my point is that it may not be economically feasible, which is supported somewhat by the fact no one has tried.

Obviously you were not aware that a lot of drilling has already been done in the Arctic.
There have also been land rigs drilling on Ellesmere Island since at least the late 70's that I'm personally aware of.

[Maddog78]

I can also assure you that I made significantly more than minimum wage.

[SeaGypsy]

The sovereignty of seafloor is a bizzarre issue.

I lived in Australia while 'our' Governmint helped boot Indonesia out of Timor.
Since then Timor Leste has become the poorest country in Asia.

Bush's buddy Howard was trying to screw Timor for more than 80% of the Timor Gas Fields.
These fields are 6 to 10 times closer to Indonesia, Timor, than they are to Australia.
(the new Rudd labour Gov is only screwing them for 50%)

Australia routinely captures, detains and burns the boats of Indonesian fisherman who are less than 100 NM from home but 400 NM from Australia.

This from a country who has only existed as one for barely a century; against a People's Republic (ex dutch colony) based on a civilzation over 1000 years old.

This arrogance costs Australia big time in our relations with ASEAN Nations (all of our near neighbours). Crops rot on the ground because Aussies won't pick fruit in the tropics; it has taken 3 years of lobbying for a farmer group to be allowed to bring in foreign workers if necessary. 200 will make the 1st batch, hey are from Samoa. No Timorese thanks, that would mean we would have to let Indonesians in& we all know what we think of that idea.

I know this is a little wide of the thread.

My answer; sovereignty belongs to the indigenous (if anyone) morally. But it will be grabbed by the most sophisticated nation around with the biggest stick to wave around.

Another point is how much does each country really need the resource. Where is the arbitrator? Isn't that H. Clinton's job? (fat chance)

[bencole]

I personally have worked in the Beaufort Sea onboard the Kulluk and Molikpaq for Gulf Oil and the Explorer II Drill Ship for Dome Petroleum in the mid 80's.
It is no problem to work up there. Just takes proper planning.

even then much of the artic is thousands of kilometers further away from the beaufort sea, it could still be a logistical nightmare.
CF station alert is the farthest north manned place in the world I think and requires
military level logistics to maintain, if some of the proposed production wells are even further north suppling them would be a major effort.

I'm sure there would be profitable fields found if oil was $150/bbl especially once the Mackenzie pipeline is completed.

Would the pipeline be laid without the guarantee of a super giant field though? I mean they built the alaskan pipeline because of the north slope field. if the artic is known to have such potential why is the pipeline not already built? This article hints at some of the problems I take it:

http://aspocanada.ca/losing-the-arctic-edge.html

I think the USGS estimate of only 90 billion barrels of oil accross the entire artic circle might be viewed as disappointing and not worth the financial risk.

Obviously you were not aware that a lot of drilling has already been done in the Arctic.
There have also been land rigs drilling on Ellesmere Island since at least the late 70's that I'm personally aware of.

what was the outcome of the drilling? where they exploration wells only?did they end up capping the wells ?
Ellemere island is pretty remote and desolate. how do they transport the product to market?

[Maddog78]

The questions you are asking me are answered in that article you linked to.
If the money is right drilling and production will happen. Technology and distance will not be the limitation.

E.I. wells were all exploration. You have to find it before you produce it.
I believe they did ship a tanker load of oil down to the east coast of Canada as a trial a few yrs. ago.

[Maddog78]

I found this.
This island is close to E.I.
If global warming does in fact decrease summer time ice cover in the Arctic and the price of oil and gas go sky high again the Arctic will become active again. It's just a matter of time.

Bent Horn Oil: Early in 1974 Panarctic
discovered the Bent Horn oil field on Cameron
Island. The oil lies in ancient reef rocks,
more than 3 km below surface! In 1985 the
first shipment of 100,000 barrels was
made by an ice-breaking tanker to a
refinery in Montreal. These shipments
continued until the late 1990s. The Bent
Horn field is small – 12 million barrels of
oil – compared to the largest yet found,
Cisco, near Lougheed Island, which has
an estimated 584 million barrels of oil.

http://www.gac.ca/PopularGeoscience/fac ... dGas_e.pdf



A related article from the Calgary Herald last yr.

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/ne ... 8a75c2&p=1

[bencole]

I found this.
This island is close to E.I.

Bent Horn Oil: Early in 1974 Panarctic
discovered the Bent Horn oil field on Cameron
Island. The oil lies in ancient reef rocks,
more than 3 km below surface! In 1985 the
first shipment of 100,000 barrels was
made by an ice-breaking tanker to a
refinery in Montreal. These shipments
continued until the late 1990s. The Bent
Horn field is small – 12 million barrels of
oil – compared to the largest yet found,
Cisco, near Lougheed Island, which has
an estimated 584 million barrels of oil.

At 0.5 bbl, that field doesn't rank high on this list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields

I'm not sure if that is a large enough find to justify a pipeline being constructed. If there has been
exploration drilling on E.I since the late seventies and such small production numbers it sounds like it has been largely abandoned. 3 km depth would be a challenge as well I would take it, as it adds substantial costs right?

[Maddog78]

Yes, that field is not very large but the guess is that there are much larger fields to be found.
Of course costs will be high but like I said if the price for crude is high enough it will happen but the way things are going it will be way out in the future. 10 yrs plus.
3 km. is not a very deep well. I've been on 8km. deep wells in my career.
As far as I know all the E.I. wells were plugged and abandoned.
That is normal when exploring in a new area, like I said you have to find the fields first bfore you make plans to produce them.

This "battle" over arctic rights and jurisdiction is all about gov'ts getting their ducks in a row before the actual drilling and production boom is to begin in the area.

[Plantagenet]

Russia announces new army units to be stationed in Arctic to protect Russian energy resources from Canada and other potential aggressors.

Russia's new Arctic army

This seems to be in response to Canada announcing new naval units will be sent to the Arctic

[KevO]

another reason we need to get off oil - avoidance of war with Russia

Russia has announced plans to set up a military force to protect its interests in the Arctic. In a document published on its national security council's website, Moscow says it expects the Arctic to become its main resource base by 2020.
The document foresees the Arctic becoming Russia's main source of oil and gas within the next decade.

In order to protect its assets, Moscow says one of its main goals will be the establishment of troops "capable of ensuring military security" in the region. With climate change opening up the possibility of making drilling viable in previously inaccessible areas, the Arctic has gained in strategic importance for Russia. With an estimated 90 billion untapped barrels of oil, Russia's strategy is likely to be scrutinised carefully by its neighbours in the far north.

link

[Tanada]

Hehe some of the people on this board think a Nuclear War taking ot all the major cities north of the equator would be the best thing that could happen for Earth....I don't happen to be one of them though.

Russia is flexing, the question is will the USA flex back, and if President Obama does, will it be effective?

[eastbay]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiap ... pstoryview


Yup. They're not screwing around this time either.

[sparky]

This is an inflated piece of cold war propaganda, Russia has two third of the arctic coast line and been involved in arctic exploration for centuries. They are signatory to the right of the sea convention, this already entitle then to 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic rights, The problem is that the U.S. alone is not a signatory, even though they stick to the rules, the Russians are wary of a grab by force, followed by a set up " international decision "

considering the mad scrabble for mineral resources worldwide and Russian suspicion of smart talking foreigners, it's pretty much par for the course. it's no more than the British were doing slicing the north sea to their good pleasure, with the muscle of the Royal Navy behind.

Anyway it's a plan for 2020: link and the Canadians have got in too (minus a Navy): link

eventually everybody concerned will sit and slice the pie, with the North Pole as center and the biggest part going to the the country holding the biggest coastline.

[AgentR]

I'd much rather the Russians get it that the Canadians! At least the Russians are fairly straightforward about their trade practices. Canada screws you out of everything coming and going, while smiling and say, "are we such pleasant people..."

[bencole]

I'd much rather the Russians get it that the Canadians Americans! At least the Russians are fairly straightforward about their trade practices. Canada America screws you out of everything coming and going, while smiling and say, "are we such pleasant people..."

You must have been a bit sleepy when you wrote this. So I fixed it for you!